This week's episode gets the big cases out of the way early, as the Court dropped California v. Texas (holding that ACA survives another challenge for lack of standing) and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (holding a Philadelphia law restricting referrals to a Catholic adoption agency violates the Free Exercise Clause). Both cases are more than just the headlines suggestion, and are indicative of the Court's current make-up. Law starts at (04:40).
Brett and Nazim return from vacation to see what we can learn about judges from the cases of Van Buren v. U.S. (deciding "access" under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), Borden v. U.S. (deciding reckless mindset under ACCA), Sanchez v. Myorkas (deciding admission status for permanent residency, and Garland v. Dai (deciding whether the 9th Circuit can make up immigration rules). Law starts at (07:20).
Get ready to learn, folks, because this episode discusses time, poison, wars and 160 million dollars worth of garbage in the context of Guam v. U.S.. Although its mostly a case about statutory interpretation; and it's core, its the case you didn't know you needed to know more about. The law is a moving target here, but there's less nonsense than you may think.
This week's episode covers three recent decisions, CIC Services v. IRS (procedure for challenging IRS notice requirements), Caniglia v. Strom (community care-taking exception for the home) and Edwards v. Vannoy (retroactivity of unanimous verdicts). Law starts at (04:07) and an explanation for the episode title follows soon after.
Listen, there's a lot going on here. As a general proposition, this week's episode asks Brett and Nazim to narrow down which classification of lawyers would be best to sit with at a wedding table. Amidst discussing other wedding and marriage-related topics, your boys somehow find time to discuss recent opinions Facebook v. Duguid, Jones v. Mississippi, and Torres v. Madrid. A time stamp would be insulting to both of us, so we've done away with it this week.
Buckle up, because this week we're talking crack cocaine, online dating, and positive aspects of Donald Trump's presidency. This week's case is Terry v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court can amend a poorly-written statute on mass incarceration. Law starts at (07:25).
This week's episode covers the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Bontas, which covers whether a California law that requires the disclosure of charitable donors violates the First Amendment. The law starts with a sick burn on Nazim at (05:00).
This week's episode revisits the good old days of high school, specifically the case of Mahanoy School District v. BL, where the Supreme Court must decide whether a high school that suspended a student for making a vulgar Snapchat about school sports violates the First Amendment. The law kinda generally takes shape around (11:00) but stays pretty consistent.
This week's episode covers a proposed 13 justice Supreme Court in the context of a genie that only grants political wishes, along with Google's victory against Oracle in the realm of the Paw Patrol, sexy workplaces, and the Venus De Milo. Law starts at (05:48).
That's right, Hulkamaniacs. This week's supersized episode covers this year's Wrestelmania while covering the past, present and future implications that Ford Motor Company v. Bandemere has on personal jurisdiction. A time stamp would be pointless, but there's a surprising amount of law that is certainly more than I originally intended.
We're talking sequels and remakes this week, as the podcast covers Collins v. Mnuchin (how to destroy a real estate admin agency in one easy step) and Edwards v. Vannoy (whether a rule about unanimous jury verdicts applies retroactively), two cases that carry on the spirit of decisions from last term. In this analogy, Collins is Chris Pratt, Selia Law is Sam Neil. Law starts at a robust (09:33).
This week's episode covers the hard-hitting questions associated with CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service and American tax law in general, including things like, does Nazim like horror movies? Would you rather kill or marry textual statutory interpretation? Is this case going to de-fang the IRS? Who is winning the NCAA bracket pool? (Law starts at 11:16).
We got it bad, so bad, because we're covering Torres v. Madrid, a case which asks whether or not you are seized under the Fourth Amendment when you get shot twice but are able to run away. Real practical stuff right here. Law starts at (04:58).
This week's episode is brought to you by arguing with your friends, as we cover the cases and dissents in U.S. Fish and Wildlife v. Sierra Club (FOIA's application to admin law) and Uzuegbuna v. Preczewski (pursuing nominal damages in Constitutional Law violations). The law starts at (04:30).
This week's episode covers the case of Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, which asks once again whether neutral-looking voting laws that discriminate based on race violate whatever is left of the Voting Rights Act. The law starts at (2:30), but there are two food tangents we hope you enjoy.
This week's episode is all about SPORTS! Brett and Nazim qualify their knowledge about college sports (including whether Nazim knows who Tim Tebow is) and then much later cover NCAA v. Alston, which asks whether regulations on student athlete benefits are a violation of anti-trust regulations. There's no timestamp because honestly it would be too hard to figure out when things get legal.
First off, you're welcome for that amazing episode title. Second, this episode covers the case of Republic of Germany v. Phillip, which covers how the Supreme Court uses the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to resolve property theft in the 1940s. Depending on how you view the Supreme Court, the result will probably not surprise you. Law starts at (04:50).
This week's episode covers Facebook v. Duguid, a case involving allegations that Facebook violated federal law, defenses under the First Amendment, judicial interpretations of statutes, and how you could interrupt someone's dinner in the 1980s. The law starts at (10:30).
You may think that Star Wars and the case of Van Buren v. U.S. have nothing in common; however, this episode strives to show how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should have had greater impact on Princess Leia and the Resistance at large. Brett and Nazim discuss how the Court should interpret the term access, but not before revealing their favorite Star Wars characters. Nazim's answer shouldn't surprise you. Law starts at (13:50).
This week's episode involves Nazim, a Big Computer Boy, explaining the case of Google v. Oracle to Brett, a complete Luddite. In addition to explaining fair use and its application to computer language, your boys also discuss Pokemon, Jurassic Park, Akira and Nintendo to keep things extra hip and cool. The law starts at (07:20) and we're happy to see you.
Gather round, children, to hear the story of RFRA-MAS, as told by Brett and Nazim to a live google-hangout crowd. RFRA Claus and Burwell the Elf discuss the history of RFRA, it's current application in the case of Tanzin v. Tanzir, and then take audience questions. The podcast is taking a holiday break, but will return on January 24th, 2021. Merry RFRA-MAS to all and to all a good night.
This week's episode covers last week's news stories involving the Supreme Court, including the election, COVID-19, the death penalty, and the census. The law starts at (08:49), but you'd miss your invitation to the Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court Holiday Party.
EDIT: a correction on what Nazim said about the impact of masks can be found here.
This week's episode discusses Texas v. Pennsylvania and Kelly v. Pennsylvania, the two recent failed attempts to reverse the election through the Supreme Court. The podcast welcomes a Supreme Court expert to help analyze the heart of this issue, and then Brett and Nazim discuss Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo. Law starts basically from the beginning.
This week's case covers Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which asks whether a Philadelphia law banning discrimination in the process of fostering children violates the First Amendment rights of a Catholic agency. The law starts at (07:20), but you'd miss a real brain buster from Nazim.